Rush Limbaugh Defines A Real Vs A "Phony" Soldier

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Durbin Apologizes for Nazi, Gulag, Pol Pot Remarks
Wednesday, June 22, 2005

By Sharon Kehnemui Liss

E-MAIL STORY RESPOND TO EDITOR PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
WASHINGTON — Sen. Dick Durbin (search) went to the Senate floor late Tuesday to offer his apologies to anyone who may have been offended by his comparison of treatment of detainees at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis, Soviet gulags and Cambodia's Pol Pot.

"More than most people, a senator lives by his words ... occasionally words fail us, occasionally we will fail words," Durbin, D-Ill., said.

"I am sorry if anything I said caused any offense or pain to those who have such bitter memories of the Holocaust, the greatest moral tragedy of our time. Nothing, nothing should ever be said to demean or diminish that moral tragedy.

"I am also sorry if anything I said cast a negative light on our fine men and women in the military. ... I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apology," Durbin said, choking on his words.

"They're the best," he said of U.S. service men and women.

"I think it was the right thing to do and the right thing to say to our men and women in uniform," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called Durbin's apology "an honorable step" along the road to understanding how words strengthen the nation's enemies in the war against terror.

(Story continues below
 
AEON said:

And please don't think for a second that most soldiers are buying this "we suddenly care about the soldiers" poop coming from the Left.

No one in the "left" cared about the soldiers before this? Why, because they criticized Bush and what was going on in the war? Don't confuse the two. I know and have known some, including one who died. I care so much about all of them. And plenty of people in the "left" care about them so much, I can't think of any human who wouldn't. There are no soldiers who are Democrats, who are from the "left"? What about them?

If Rush Limbaugh is patriotic well I must really despise my country :|
 
Irvine511 said:


3. absolute offensive garbage -- go to any and all anti-war rallies and you'll find just as many "i support our troops / support our troops by bringing them home" signs as any others; unless you're suggesting that the only way to support our troops is to continue the funding that gets them killed and maimed and disabled for life
Somehow I'm not FEELING supported by those folks. And neither does anyone else I know in the Armed Forces. Maybe they should consider a different way to demonstrate their love for the troops- maybe volunteer for the USO or something like that. Or maybe not make movies that portray us as raping, murdering, vicious thugs...that would be nice, too.
 
diamond said:


nice edit:up:

dbs



BVS already asked the question, i thought i was being redundant.

anyway:

[q]So let’s see. What is the setting, what is the facility and program, and who is the cast of characters here? The Senate, Dick Durban, Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, Dick Cheney, the Fox”News”Channel? Well, yes. And was Dick Durban right? Well, yes, he was absolutely correct when he compared what is happening at Gitmo to what went on in Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. To illustrate the point, and to bring the Nazi-Georgite comparison into even sharper focus, let us note that the setting and etc. laid out above could easily have been the following.

The German Reichstag shortly after the passage of the Enabling Act could have been the setting. The Act gave Hitler and his designees the power to arrest anyone deemed a “terrorist” and then imprison them indefinitely without charge, representation, or trial, just on his own say-so, just like the Patriot Act does for Bush. The person rising could have been one of the few centrists left in that body, say a member of the Catholic Center Party just before it joined up with the Nazis. The facility and program could have been the first concentration camp set up by the Nazis in March, 1933, at Dachau, to house political prisoners labeled as “terrorists” by the regime, arrested arbitrarily without charges, and etc.

The attacker could easily have been Joseph Paul Goebbels, the Nazis’ chief propagandist, just as Cheney is for the Georgites. And then there was the national Nazi Party newspaper, the Volkischer Beobachter, the Fox”News”Channel of its day. “How dare you,” they would all say, “compare our brave young men and women [members of the SS] with the barbarians of the Bolshevik monsters? You could not possibly be more un-German if you tried.” And they would hammer this message home day after day, never, ever, ever dealing with the substance of the charges, known most widely to be absolutely correct.

Sen. Durban was thus more right than he knew. What then, is the “disaster” of this episode? He attacked the Georgites the wrong way. He focused on the guards personally, or at least focused on them enough to allow the Georgites to treat everything he was saying about what is going on at Gitmo and elsewhere in the gulag and what went on in Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union, as an attack on our “fine young men and women.” Sen. Durban should have been focusing on the powers the Patriot Act gave the President to arbitrarily arrest and imprison forever, if he so pleases, anyone he labels as a “terrorist.” He should have been focusing on the presidentially-sanctioned policy that not only condones torture but encourages it.

He should have made it clear that in referring to Nazi Germany he was referring to all the totally abhorrent things that went there for years, well BEFORE the Holocaust got underway, but that were certainly very important enabling factors in its development. He then should have referred to the prison guards at Gitmo and elsewhere as victims of this policy, forced to act in ways (remember “we were only following orders” if any of our war criminals ever come to trial somewhere) that every true American rejects as totally abhorrent to our traditions of fairness, justice, and Constitutional government. The Senator should have counter-attacked strongly, demanding a discussion of the reality of the situation, exposing the Georgites for what they do over and over again, killing the messenger so that they can avoid dealing with the message.

Dick Durban’s heart was in the right place. What he said was absolutely correct, historically. However, we face a very determined and highly skilled enemy, just as intent upon destroying American Constitutional democracy as the Nazis were intent on destroying German Constitutional democracy. All of us opponents of the regime are going to have to hone our skills of verbal attack/counter-attack and searing debate to a much higher level, if the atrocious violence and seared landscape of theocratic-fascism and a resultant Second Civil War are not to be visited upon the nation of the United States of America.

http://www.planetarymovement.org/2005/06/23/short-shot-no-67-the-dick-durban-disaster/

[/q]
 
AEON said:

Somehow I'm not FEELING supported by those folks. And neither does anyone else I know in the Armed Forces. Maybe they should consider a different way to demonstrate their love for the troops- maybe volunteer for the USO or something like that. Or maybe not make movies that portray us as raping, murdering, vicious thugs...that would be nice, too.



and this would be their fault?

and please, the US is awash in patriotic bru-ha-ha that lionizes soldiers. go watch any war movie, from "Private Ryan" to "Platoon" to any of the John Wayne silliness.

it's important to understand that, yes, some soldiers are raping, murdering, vicious thugs and have been responsible for things like My Lai. it's every bit to acknolwedge the fact that, yes, we have done bad things as it is to acknolwege the fact that, yes, we did save the world from fascism.

educated people can live with multiple thoughts in their minds at once.
 
AEON said:

Somehow I'm not FEELING supported by those folks. And neither does anyone else I know in the Armed Forces. Maybe they should consider a different way to demonstrate their love for the troops- maybe volunteer for the USO or something like that. Or maybe not make movies that portray us as raping, murdering, vicious thugs...that would be nice, too.

Who's made these movies?

Please answer my question, what has Rush done to support you that the left hasn't?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Wasn't he commenting more on the procedures and the issues of Gitmo more than actually attacking soldiers?

Why did he apologize then?

One supports the troops by supporting the mission.

dbs
 
AEON said:
Somehow I'm not FEELING supported by those folks. And neither does anyone else I know in the Armed Forces. Maybe they should consider a different way to demonstrate their love for the troops- maybe volunteer for the USO or something like that. Or maybe not make movies that portray us as raping, murdering, vicious thugs...that would be nice, too.

The movie thing is irrelevant in and of itself, considering how many people are against the war and how many people make a movie. Let alone the fact that any of the movies you are talking about are almost always about true events.

I think the people who describe the Armed Forces as a terrorist group are extreme, and do not reflect the Left. And I know of no one of my fellow independents that say that.

Do you not believe it possible to be against the war and not hate the troops?
 
diamond said:
One supports the troops by supporting the mission.

dbs

Single dumbest statement I've ever heard today. Congrats.

If you really want me to, I'll explain it, but I have a feeling you don't really even believe that yourself.
 
diamond said:


Why did he apologize then?

Why did Imus apologize if he didn't feel he did anything wrong?
diamond said:

One supports the troops by supporting the mission.


BULLSHIT!!!

Let's see:

The right: let's send the troops into a war we don't need and let's make sure they don't have the proper equipment.

The left: let's bring our troops home, they don't need to be there, I'd rather have them alive.

Which sounds more supportive to you?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Who's made these movies?

Dang - you do watch the news every now and then don't you? I even admit I watch Anderson Cooper 360.
 
AEON said:
It's a shame how much the Iraqis hate us...




My Brother In Iraq



:sigh:

this totally avoids serious debate.

i'm sure those Iraqis loved your brother. i'm sure there are many troops doing wonderful things. that doesn't mean i support this fiasco nor does it mean that i think a single future American or Iraqi death will be for anything other than a colossal mistake.

i have a friend who's been to Iraq 3 times. and he's totally anti-war. he's not anti-troop, not by a longshot. he's anti-the fucktards who got us into this mess and are too incompetent to even tell anyone what the goal is or what victory looks like.
 
AEON said:


Dang - you do watch the news every now and then don't you? I even admit I watch Anderson Cooper 360.

Damn, I thought you could figure out the point I was trying to make. Guess not. Maybe I should be a little more obvious, how many, just a quick percentage of the left are making these movies?
 
AEON said:

Somehow I'm not FEELING supported by those folks.

Who?
a majority of the troops?



The military, like any community within the United States, includes members both for and against the war. Senior generals, such as General John Batiste and Paul Eaton, have come out against the war while others have publicly supported it. A December 2006 poll conducted by the Military Times found just 35 percent of service members approved of President Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq, compared to 42 percent who disapproved. From this figure alone, it is clear that Mr. Limbaugh’s insult is directed at thousands of American service members.
 
So I'm guessing due to the silence, we realize Rush really hasn't done anything all that supportive, and that we realize the movie makers are a small minority and that labeling the left because of the actions by a few is wrong?
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:
Purple Heart recipient responds to Rush-is he a phony soldier too?


Nope, he's a phony, our own FYM armchair military correspondent said, "One supports the troops by supporting the mission", so we know it has to be true.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:
Purple Heart recipient responds to Rush-is he a phony soldier too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKM_NsTswco

...and if you search hard enough you can find a Black Sabbath fan at a U2 show, and if you look even furthur, you might even find a Henry Rollins' fan at a U2 show, well what do ya know, how about that!?

These views our in the minority of the US military.

context ppl, context.

dbs
 
Last edited:
AEON said:
It's a shame how much the Iraqis hate us...




I thought I would go to militarytimes.com for a credible source

Poll: 1 in 5 Iraqis has confidence in coalition

The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Mar 19, 2007 8:26:36 EDT

LONDON — Fewer than one in five Iraqis has confidence in U.S.-led coalition troops and they are evenly split on whether they have confidence in Iraq’s government, according to a poll published Monday.

Iraqis are growing increasingly pessimistic, according to a poll gauging public opinion four years after the U.S.-led invasion of their country. The British Broadcasting Corp., ABC News, USA Today and Germany’s ARD television commissioned the poll.

Only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in U.S. and coalition troops and 86 percent are concerned that someone in their household will be a victim of violence.

Iraqis do not want to see their country divided along sectarian lines, according to the poll. However, the country is becoming increasingly polarized between Sunnis and Shiites — with Sunnis appearing more pessimistic.

Pessimism is most felt across central Iraq, including Baghdad, where Sunnis are most numerous.

Religious differences are most pronounced in attitudes toward the execution of Saddam Hussein. Sunni respondents largely regard the manner of the former Iraqi leader’s death as inappropriate and unlikely to encourage reconciliation. Shiites predominantly took the opposite view.

More than 2,000 Iraqis were interviewed face-to-face by D3 Systems, a pollster specializing in conflict countries, between Feb. 25 to March 5. The margin of error was not immediately available.



http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/03/ap_iraqis_poll_031907/
 
diamond said:

These views our in the minority of the US military.

context ppl, context.

dbs

And your point? The issue is are they phony, and you said you must support the mission.

Do you read the threads?
 
Back
Top Bottom